And if you spent 40% less time trying to convince people about the number 40% 40% less people would take the piss
This is where DS needs a "like" button
I'm still trying to work out all the decent games a PS4 has over an Xbox1 but struggling. Once Naughty Dog etc, start doing something maybe, but at launch there's no comparison.
And if you spent 40% less time trying to convince people about the number 40% 40% less people would take the piss
Well forgive me if I need to point out people's inaccuracies and fallacies.
This isn't an Xbox One Propaganda forum. I only wheel out the number when required, when people question that it is that much more powerful, when they think the Xbox One is just as good, internal wise, as the PS4. It is a truthfact based on real numbers from both sides, but some people have been doubting the difference exists, or confuse power with potential end results.
I don't band it about as a boasting tool to troll people because I think the PS4 is the business.
I don't give two shits what console you like or what console you buy, I'm getting a PS4, it is cheaper it has all the games I want. You buying another console is not going to affect my gaming experience, but what I do care about is that facts are reported on correctly and incorrect information is not spread but for some reason any time you mention something positive about something with a negative against the competitor you get labelled as some kind of fan boy, even though you make posts about how you think the Snap feature will be very good, useful and a well-used feature or how that every console can become a dev kit is a very compelling selling point.
But no, I've got myself fully wedged up inside Kaz and only speak ill of Balmer's Bunch.
I'm still trying to work out all the decent games a PS4 has over an Xbox1 but struggling. Once Naughty Dog etc, start doing something maybe, but at launch there's no comparison.
Agreed. None of the launch games appeal to me but as soon as they bring out a new Uncharted or a squeal to Last of Us I will be all over the PS4
Well forgive me if I need to point out people's inaccuracies and fallacies.
This isn't an Xbox One Propaganda forum. I only wheel out the number when required, when people question that it is that much more powerful, when they think the Xbox One is just as good, internal wise, as the PS4. It is a truthfact based on real numbers from both sides, but some people have been doubting the difference exists, or confuse power with potential end results.
I don't band it about as a boasting tool to troll people because I think the PS4 is the business.
I don't give two shits what console you like or what console you buy, I'm getting a PS4, it is cheaper it has all the games I want. You buying another console is not going to affect my gaming experience, but what I do care about is that facts are reported on correctly and incorrect information is not spread but for some reason any time you mention something positive about something with a negative against the competitor you get labelled as some kind of fan boy, even though you make posts about how you think the Snap feature will be very good, useful and a well-used feature or how that every console can become a dev kit is a very compelling selling point.
But no, I've got myself fully wedged up inside Kaz and only speak ill of Balmer's Bunch.
Without getting into it too much, just because the GPU is 40% more powerful (based on the amount of teraflops) that doesn't mean the console is overall 40% more powerful....I'm pretty sure you don't just base the power of a computer/console on the amount of teraflops it can do. There are plenty of other factors to consider which affect the overall performance of the console.
Well forgive me if I need to point out people's inaccuracies and fallacies.
This isn't an Xbox One Propaganda forum. I only wheel out the number when required, when people question that it is that much more powerful, when they think the Xbox One is just as good, internal wise, as the PS4. It is a truthfact based on real numbers from both sides, but some people have been doubting the difference exists, or confuse power with potential end results.
I don't band it about as a boasting tool to troll people because I think the PS4 is the business.
I don't give two shits what console you like or what console you buy, I'm getting a PS4, it is cheaper it has all the games I want. You buying another console is not going to affect my gaming experience, but what I do care about is that facts are reported on correctly and incorrect information is not spread but for some reason any time you mention something positive about something with a negative against the competitor you get labelled as some kind of fan boy, even though you make posts about how you think the Snap feature will be very good, useful and a well-used feature or how that every console can become a dev kit is a very compelling selling point.
But no, I've got myself fully wedged up inside Kaz and only speak ill of Balmer's Bunch.
It was only a bit on banter no need for an essay that was 40% more txt than I could be bothered to read.
It was only a bit on banter no need for an essay that was 40% more txt than I could be bothered to read.
It's fine. I'm just making sure people understand why I do what I do and that I'm not going around spreading bias!
I think everyone on here has now experienced what I have to say and I won't be mentioning it again unless some newbie comes on and starts suggesting the consoles are identical :mad:
It's fine. I'm just making sure people understand why I do what I do and that I'm not going around spreading bias!
I think everyone on here has now experienced what I have to say and I won't be mentioning it again unless some newbie comes on and starts suggesting the consoles are identical :mad:
Peace out. Enjoy your CPUs.
Before I go on, just pointing out I'm not attacking you chopoff, just curious about something. You keep focusing on that 40% number which is the GPU power, while ignoring the rest of the console. Why? From what we can tell MS have done a lot more work to the CPU than Sony have done giving it advantages in certain areas to make up for the poorer GPU.
From the Eurogamer link in the other page:
The combination of the CPU performance increase in combination with its cluster of custom "Data Move Engines" strongly suggests that while PlayStation 4 has an undoubted graphics hardware advantage, the Xbox One's CPU capabilities are a significant step ahead.
such as a 30GB/s link from the CPU to the DDR3 RAM. In contrast, PlayStation 4 is believed to have 20GB/s access to the 8GB of GDDR5
Audio-wise, Microsoft's hardware is also impressive, with DSP effects, mixing and other features effectively available for "free" to developers, where PS4's set-up only decodes compressed audio formats. It's understood that these hardware features are being incorporated into major middlewares, which potentially sees the audio burden on CPU reduced on Xbox One.
Yeah the PS4 may be more powerful, I just think that 40% figure is invalid.
Bottom line is most multi-platform games on X1 and PS4 will enjoy parity with perhaps the occasional game having a more noticeable advantage on either platform, but when it comes to exclusives the extra GPU power in PS4 will probably be made evident.
The PS3 offloaded certain tasks to the Cell to compensate for the lacking GPU performance and created some great looking games in the process, 360 used the grunt of the GPU and GDDR3/eDRAM to create some equally outstanding looking games. X1 exclusives will also take advantage of the systems unique strengths and will offer high quality graphics, as we can already see.
Let's look at what we have right now in front of us, the PS4 games do not look 40% better and I would challenge anyone who thought that was the case. On-paper is one thing, real world application is another.
The weird thing is, apparently Sound Quality matters now! That's a little odd, it didn't matter this generation at all when the PS3 could mix up to LPCM 7.1 on the fly compared to the Xbox 360's Dolby Digital 5.1 (640kbps). Weird I say.
The weird thing is, apparently Sound Quality matters now! That's a little odd, it didn't matter this generation at all when the PS3 could mix up to LPCM 7.1 on the fly compared to the Xbox 360's Dolby Digital 5.1 (640kbps). Weird I say.
It mattered to me. That and the blueray was what made me go for PS3.
DD 5.1 and I'm good. Not an audio snob personally, I game with mostly headphones, want to pick up a pair of the new Turtle Beach XP Seven series for Christmas.
Why? From what we can tell MS have done a lot more work to the CPU than Sony have done giving it advantages in certain areas to make up for the poorer GPU.
So I have a bit of a view on this, particularly this "Data Move Engine" part of the XBO CPU. Developers won't want to use it, even if it gives significant data throughput compared to normal load/store.
And they'll resist using it as much as possible, because they don't want to have to deal with such a massive difference in their engine code when dealing with Multi-platform. They did that with PS3/360 and they're tired of that sort of crap.
It sounds to me like MS found quite early on that there's something a bit slow when moving data around with the CPU, and tried to shoe-horn in a feature to make up for it. They seems to have this nice big fat, high-speed bus on there but I wonder if the bus controller is total FUBAR or maybe the cache interface is just slow.
Mind you, that's just an educated guess on my part.
As far as I can tell, since I can find nothing to back this guys claims up, he has taken rumour from misterxmedia and added to it state what additional GPU the Xbox contains. AS I sid, his is the only claim I can find which states what GPU it is. Added to that, misterxmedia is claiming 4 Tflops for this mythical additional GPU
If true however, this begs the questions; Why are developers not achieving 1080p @ 60 FPS on ALL games?
Edit:
One more question that would need answering. How could MS afford to put AMDs new flagship design in a console that costs less than a current top end graphics card?
One more question that would need answering. How could MS afford to put AMDs new flagship design in a console that costs less than a current top end graphics card?
There are several ways it *could* happen
1) Printing the actual chip is fairly inexpensive...the cost of printing the part is essentially a few dollars, assuming a good yield.
2) No need to for a separate card and associated bits such as cooling.
3) Up-front bulk order - MS could probably get a massively good bulk purchase deal, reducing he cost even more.
The real costs come with a lot of the licensing, especially on the software front. Just asking AMD to provide a shader compiler for developers to use is a deal that runs into the tens of millions, even though they're just proving existing tech.
1) Printing the actual chip is fairly inexpensive...the cost of printing the part is essentially a few dollars, assuming a good yield.
2) No need to for a separate card and associated bits such as cooling.
3) Up-front bulk order - MS could probably get a massively good bulk purchase deal, reducing he cost even more.
The real costs come with a lot of the licensing, especially on the software front. Just asking AMD to provide a shader compiler for developers to use is a deal that runs into the tens of millions, even though they're just proving existing tech.
You seriously think that AMD would licence their new flagship design which will retail for around $1000 and allow MS to place it in a console that costs $500. No way would people buy a $1000 card for their PC if they knew they could by a $500 with CPU, flagship GPU, secondary GPU and Kinect.
You seriously think that AMD would licence their new flagship design which will retail for around $1000 and allow MS to place it in a console that costs $500. No way would people buy a $1000 card for their PC if they knew they could by a $500 with CPU, flagship GPU, secondary GPU and Kinect.
That's pure fantasy!
I'm not saying that it's going to appear in the XBO or not, or if it's a reality. But just think how much of the 1000 bucks is actual unit cost, and then how much of that unit cost is going to cover R&D, with buffer for sales targets.
You asked how could a console manufacturer get a good deal, and I'm telling you from experience, how that just *might* happen.
Personally, I think MS will stick with tried and tested tech to ensure stability and reduced license fees for software and documentation.
The point is AMD would *NOT* licence their flagship product cheaply. Therefore MS could *NOT* afford to put it in the Xbox One regardless of how cheap it is to make.
The point is AMD would *NOT* licence their flagship product cheaply. Therefore MS could *NOT* afford to put it in the Xbox One regardless of how cheap it is to make.
Why wouldn't they? If the deal makes more money than licensing at a premium cost, why wouldn't AMD do that? The goal of any electronics company is to make their products as cheap as possible so they can a) sell lots and b) maximize the profits.
And with doing a deal with a console manufacturer, you have can almost guarantee point (a).
I think perhaps that you're getting a bit confused by calling it a "flagship product" and thinking that this has anything to do with how AMD prices its products.
Comments
Off topic but yay 2D is back, this place was way too quiet without you!
Here's the first batch of Xbox One's direct from the warehouse packed and ready to be shipped to retailers. link
I'm a sucker for hard luck cases, so the more the Xbox One gets run down, the more I want one ! lol
Excellent lol
And if you spent 40% less time trying to convince people about the number 40% 40% less people would take the piss
This is where DS needs a "like" button
I'm still trying to work out all the decent games a PS4 has over an Xbox1 but struggling. Once Naughty Dog etc, start doing something maybe, but at launch there's no comparison.
This isn't an Xbox One Propaganda forum. I only wheel out the number when required, when people question that it is that much more powerful, when they think the Xbox One is just as good, internal wise, as the PS4. It is a truthfact based on real numbers from both sides, but some people have been doubting the difference exists, or confuse power with potential end results.
I don't band it about as a boasting tool to troll people because I think the PS4 is the business.
I don't give two shits what console you like or what console you buy, I'm getting a PS4, it is cheaper it has all the games I want. You buying another console is not going to affect my gaming experience, but what I do care about is that facts are reported on correctly and incorrect information is not spread but for some reason any time you mention something positive about something with a negative against the competitor you get labelled as some kind of fan boy, even though you make posts about how you think the Snap feature will be very good, useful and a well-used feature or how that every console can become a dev kit is a very compelling selling point.
But no, I've got myself fully wedged up inside Kaz and only speak ill of Balmer's Bunch.
Agreed. None of the launch games appeal to me but as soon as they bring out a new Uncharted or a squeal to Last of Us I will be all over the PS4
Without getting into it too much, just because the GPU is 40% more powerful (based on the amount of teraflops) that doesn't mean the console is overall 40% more powerful....I'm pretty sure you don't just base the power of a computer/console on the amount of teraflops it can do. There are plenty of other factors to consider which affect the overall performance of the console.
It was only a bit on banter no need for an essay that was 40% more txt than I could be bothered to read.
I think everyone on here has now experienced what I have to say and I won't be mentioning it again unless some newbie comes on and starts suggesting the consoles are identical :mad:
Peace out. Enjoy your CPUs.
Before I go on, just pointing out I'm not attacking you chopoff, just curious about something. You keep focusing on that 40% number which is the GPU power, while ignoring the rest of the console. Why? From what we can tell MS have done a lot more work to the CPU than Sony have done giving it advantages in certain areas to make up for the poorer GPU.
From the Eurogamer link in the other page:
Yeah the PS4 may be more powerful, I just think that 40% figure is invalid.
The PS3 offloaded certain tasks to the Cell to compensate for the lacking GPU performance and created some great looking games in the process, 360 used the grunt of the GPU and GDDR3/eDRAM to create some equally outstanding looking games. X1 exclusives will also take advantage of the systems unique strengths and will offer high quality graphics, as we can already see.
Let's look at what we have right now in front of us, the PS4 games do not look 40% better and I would challenge anyone who thought that was the case. On-paper is one thing, real world application is another.
It mattered to me. That and the blueray was what made me go for PS3.
So I have a bit of a view on this, particularly this "Data Move Engine" part of the XBO CPU. Developers won't want to use it, even if it gives significant data throughput compared to normal load/store.
And they'll resist using it as much as possible, because they don't want to have to deal with such a massive difference in their engine code when dealing with Multi-platform. They did that with PS3/360 and they're tired of that sort of crap.
It sounds to me like MS found quite early on that there's something a bit slow when moving data around with the CPU, and tried to shoe-horn in a feature to make up for it. They seems to have this nice big fat, high-speed bus on there but I wonder if the bus controller is total FUBAR or maybe the cache interface is just slow.
Mind you, that's just an educated guess on my part.
As far as I can tell, since I can find nothing to back this guys claims up, he has taken rumour from misterxmedia and added to it state what additional GPU the Xbox contains. AS I sid, his is the only claim I can find which states what GPU it is. Added to that, misterxmedia is claiming 4 Tflops for this mythical additional GPU
If true however, this begs the questions; Why are developers not achieving 1080p @ 60 FPS on ALL games?
Edit:
One more question that would need answering. How could MS afford to put AMDs new flagship design in a console that costs less than a current top end graphics card?
There are several ways it *could* happen
1) Printing the actual chip is fairly inexpensive...the cost of printing the part is essentially a few dollars, assuming a good yield.
2) No need to for a separate card and associated bits such as cooling.
3) Up-front bulk order - MS could probably get a massively good bulk purchase deal, reducing he cost even more.
The real costs come with a lot of the licensing, especially on the software front. Just asking AMD to provide a shader compiler for developers to use is a deal that runs into the tens of millions, even though they're just proving existing tech.
You seriously think that AMD would licence their new flagship design which will retail for around $1000 and allow MS to place it in a console that costs $500. No way would people buy a $1000 card for their PC if they knew they could by a $500 with CPU, flagship GPU, secondary GPU and Kinect.
That's pure fantasy!
I'm not saying that it's going to appear in the XBO or not, or if it's a reality. But just think how much of the 1000 bucks is actual unit cost, and then how much of that unit cost is going to cover R&D, with buffer for sales targets.
You asked how could a console manufacturer get a good deal, and I'm telling you from experience, how that just *might* happen.
Personally, I think MS will stick with tried and tested tech to ensure stability and reduced license fees for software and documentation.
Why wouldn't they? If the deal makes more money than licensing at a premium cost, why wouldn't AMD do that? The goal of any electronics company is to make their products as cheap as possible so they can a) sell lots and b) maximize the profits.
And with doing a deal with a console manufacturer, you have can almost guarantee point (a).
I think perhaps that you're getting a bit confused by calling it a "flagship product" and thinking that this has anything to do with how AMD prices its products.